Purpose

The purpose of the report is to
enact the full 2 years of permitted extensions for Mental Health
Supported Housing contract that is delivered by Hestia.
 
The original contract was awarded via a compliant call off
from DPS 3, Independent Living Lot 
Housing Related Support for a term of 3 +1 +1 years from 2nd August
2022.
 
The main reason for requesting
to enact the full available extensions, is to enable a full
redesign of the supported accommodation pathway, which includes
developing a  new accommodation
framework that supports move on from supported housing and improved
outcomes, easily referral process and an improved pathway to enable
independent living.
 
Draft Recommendation
is: Approve the permitted 2 year
extension until 1st August 2027
 

Content

For the reasons as outlined in
the report, the Corporate Director for Adult Social Care &
Health (DASS & Calidcott
Guardian) AGREED to:
 
Approve the
permitted 2-year extension (1 + 1) until 1st August
2027, of the Mental health Supported Housing contract with Hestia
Housing.
 
Note and approve
that the aggregated spend value over five years will
be £4,105,083.24 (inclusive of two, and subject
to further, potential inflationary uplifts) which exceeds the
original total award value of £3,697,220.80 by
11%.
 

Reasons for the decision

The Council is seeking to enact
the first and second year of the permitted extension periods to
allow time for the mental health commissioning team to redesign the
current contract. The new[NW1]  end date of the
contract will also align with the end date of the 27 mental health
step down beds that are currently delivered by Evolve and within a
contract led by Housing. 
 
There have been a number of
issues identified with the current model. These include:
·        
Poor housing stock
·        
Complex referral processes
·        
A lack of ‘move on’ ability 
·        
The current contract is not meeting emerging
needs
 
The extension will be used to
design a new mental health housing service potentially
incorporating the above mentioned contracts with stakeholders,
residents, carers and those with lived experience.
 

 [NW1]Is it not just the end
date of the contract as awarded rather than a “new” end
date?

Alternative options considered

Option

Pros

Cons

1.   
Allow contract to expire and service be
decommissioned

·        
Immediate financial saving

·        
The service supports vulnerable individuals who
would be at risk if support was withdrawn.
·        
Insufficient time to carry out reviews with current
service users to establish alternative provision
·        
The service helps the council meet its statutory
requirements under the Care Act.
 

2.   
Extend the contract by 24 months from 2nd  August
2025 to 1st August 2027 within the permitted extension
to allow time for the development of a new service specification to
meet emerging need
 
Recommended
 

·        
Enables Hestia and Evolve contract end date to align
and pooling of budgets and resources
·        
Opportunity to commission services that respond to
and better serve local needs and demands enabling better
outcomes.
·        
To work with existing and new partners and service
users to design new service specification
·        
To develop increased choice and improved quality of
provision
·        
Enables improved relationship building with provider
& RSL market

·        
Risk of unmet needs due to uncertainty around the
number of units to increase capacity.
·        
Timescale may be insufficient to enable
recommissioning and procurement activity
·        
Blockage in pathway due to insufficient move on
option
 

3.   
Carry out a new commissioned service procurement
now

·        
[NW1] 

·        
Insufficient time for meaningful
procurement
·        
Insufficient time for service user and stakeholder
engagement
·        
Redesign of service to better meet needs would not
take place

4.   
Re-procuring Mental health supported housing service
in its current format

·        
Consistency for service users.
·        
Consistency for commissioners

·        
Insufficient time for meaningful
procurement
·        
Continuing with a service model which is
inadequate
·        
Unmet needs coupled with lack of resources as lower
support sites are not helping to meet demand
 
 

 

 [NW1]There is no risk of
challenge in the case of permitted extensions